From: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
To: Vivek Sharma <vivek.sharma@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: RTE-FLOW: PF vs PHY_PORT
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 15:45:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180827134550.GD3695@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ae99760b-6920-9d3d-927d-d72747457b75@caviumnetworks.com>
Hi Vivek,
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 05:16:52PM +0530, Vivek Sharma wrote:
> Hi Devs,
>
> I am trying to enable RTE-FLOW support on one of our platforms & having hard time in figuring out PF vs PHY_PORT differences and DPDK rationale for introducing these two distinct identities.
>
> Rte-Flow distinguishes between RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_PF & RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_PHY_PORT and
>
> RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_PF & RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_PHY_PORT.
>
>
> I am finding it difficult to justify the presence of both these types, when functionality & implementation wise, these look quite similar. I would really appreciate if you could illustrate the differences between above item & action types by taking some hardware/platform as reference.
Some devices, typically those with a single PCI bus address shared for all
ports (e.g. Mellanox ConnectX-3) expose all their physical ports to each
PF/VF instance [1], not the other way around. With these, PHY_PORT item and
action give the ability to select a nondefault physical port in a flow rule.
PHY_PORT cannot be specified on most devices with PF/VF dedicated to
physical ports, although their drivers should at least recognize 0 as a
supported index and ignore it.
Since devices can expose any number of PF/VF instances and physical ports,
this gives applications the ability to use both as matching criteria and/or
action target.
A higher level alternative to PHY_PORT and PF/VF items/actions is PORT_ID to
match/target DPDK port IDs, which users may find more convenient. One
drawback is that it only works with devices instantiated within DPDK.
PF/VF and PHY_PORT should be reserved for corner cases where PORT_ID cannot
be used. My advice is to implement PORT_ID and not bother with the others
since port IDs are what applications are familiar with.
[1] Although with CX3, individual ports can be disabled per VF, they remain
"seen" by each instance.
--
Adrien Mazarguil
6WIND
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-27 13:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-22 11:46 RTE-FLOW: PF vs PHY_PORT Vivek Sharma
2018-08-27 13:11 ` Vivek Sharma
2018-08-27 13:45 ` Adrien Mazarguil [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180827134550.GD3695@6wind.com \
--to=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=vivek.sharma@caviumnetworks.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.